RetractionWatch Profile Banner
Retraction Watch Profile
Retraction Watch

@RetractionWatch

Followers
91K
Following
1
Media
25K
Statuses
36K

Daily newsletter https://t.co/T4dNEAd2zy Database https://t.co/Wx3LmYCtGk Tips [email protected] (better than @ replies) Donate https://t.co/qh4sIBw1uU

New York
Joined January 2011
Don't wanna be here? Send us removal request.
@RetractionWatch
Retraction Watch
6 hours
“Diabetes ‘Trade Journals’: A Rather Heterogeneous Affair.” https://t.co/DfCMqfoNXT
0
1
3
@RetractionWatch
Retraction Watch
7 hours
“Court sets aside” university researcher’s “plagiarism case against colleague.” https://t.co/MnSaSZ4u95
Tweet card summary image
thestarphoenix.com
0
1
2
@RetractionWatch
Retraction Watch
8 hours
The Royal Society journal Philosophical Transactions uses cover art that is AI generated, says researcher. https://t.co/2DrFexg5Je
0
2
5
@RetractionWatch
Retraction Watch
9 hours
“Riding the Autism Bicycle to Retraction Town.” https://t.co/a5UtejWVkt
0
0
6
@RetractionWatch
Retraction Watch
10 hours
“There is a danger in not being critical about the efforts that go under sleuthing,” psychologist Ioana Alina Cristea says. “The boundaries of what they are doing are very porous.” https://t.co/BTCKRDidpj
1
1
0
@RetractionWatch
Retraction Watch
11 hours
Nature paper retracted after one investigation finds data errors, another finds no misconduct. https://t.co/d9oscwILSm
0
6
11
@RetractionWatch
Retraction Watch
12 hours
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence – and that affects what scientific journals choose to publish.” https://t.co/9fS2o9GFIV
0
4
9
@RetractionWatch
Retraction Watch
13 hours
Glyphosate safety article retracted eight years after Monsanto ghostwriting revealed in court. https://t.co/rjVr9ZHGCq
0
8
14
@RetractionWatch
Retraction Watch
1 day
Can X discourse be used to predict which papers will be retracted? Researchers investigate. https://t.co/SSnKlJGbTC
0
2
10
@RetractionWatch
Retraction Watch
1 day
Number of ‘unsafe’ publications by psychologist Hans Eysenck could be ‘high and far reaching.' https://t.co/vfH83cqdKN
2
6
26
@RetractionWatch
Retraction Watch
1 day
“A small number of influential authors … account for a significant proportion of retracted clinical trials,” researchers find. https://t.co/xeBsiS4EE8
1
2
8
@RetractionWatch
Retraction Watch
1 day
“New NIH Policies Make It Easier to End Grants, Ignore Peer Review.” https://t.co/kVr96As08N
0
1
2
@RetractionWatch
Retraction Watch
1 day
The case of the fake references in an ethics journal. https://t.co/eer9QuVbOE
0
6
13
@RetractionWatch
Retraction Watch
1 day
“The fall of a prolific science journal exposes the billion-dollar profits of scientific publishing.” https://t.co/yC28iXtLJi
1
32
92
@RetractionWatch
Retraction Watch
1 day
Iraqi journal suspected of coercion, two others dropped from major citation databases. https://t.co/LQtu9clFUv
0
1
4
@RetractionWatch
Retraction Watch
2 days
"Universities told they must lead fight against scientific ‘paper mills’" in Poland. https://t.co/L8j0erE5jn
1
8
12
@RetractionWatch
Retraction Watch
2 days
"Reviewers are better equipped to detect fraud than editors," researchers say in response to study of coordinated fraud. https://t.co/uVvhcdq6XN https://t.co/Vv9Gv4C5wr See our earlier coverage. https://t.co/TEkboch63G
2
14
44
@RetractionWatch
Retraction Watch
2 days
"Research Integrity in an Era of AI and Massive Amounts of Data": Authors "expand on" previous papers "and offer more details on solutions." https://t.co/4cQRt2cYMV https://t.co/1PqGVzdrfp
0
2
2
@RetractionWatch
Retraction Watch
2 days
"Court sets aside" university researcher's "plagiarism case against colleague." https://t.co/MnSaSZ4u95
0
2
8